Klifa v Slater & Anor [2022] EWHC 427 (QB) (28 February 2022)

Klifa v Slater & Anor [2022] EWHC 427 (QB) (28 February 2022)

The Defendants failed to demonstrate that France is clearly or distinctly more appropriate than England & Wales for the quantification of damages. Although the accident and applicable law are French, the Defendants are domiciled in England, liability is admitted, and the quantum-only dispute can be fairly and efficiently resolved in England using English procedural rules and French substantive law. The balance of convenience, procedural fairness, and the interests of justice do not justify a stay. The application is refused.

Citation
[2022] EWHC 427
Parties
Claimant: Sylvie Klifa; First Defendant: Simon Slater; Second Defendant: Insure and Go Insurance Services Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 February 2022
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury Claim (quantum Only, Liability Admitted) / Application to Stay Proceedings on Forum Non Conveniens Grounds
Outcome
Application for stay refused; proceedings to continue in England & Wales.
Legal Topics
Forum Non Conveniens, Jurisdiction Post Brexit, Applicable Law (rome Ii), Quantification of Damages Under Foreign Law, Enforcement of Foreign Judgments
Private International Law Personal Injury Forum Non Conveniens Jurisdiction Post Brexit Applicable Law (rome Ii) Quantification of Damages Under Foreign Law Enforcement of Foreign Judgments

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 12
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sylvie Klifa

Claimant

Simon Slater

First Defendant

Insure and Go Insurance Services Limited

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury Claim (quantum Only, Liability Admitted) / Application to Stay Proceedings on Forum Non Conveniens Grounds

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the courts of England & Wales or France are the most appropriate forum for quantification of damages following a French accident involving English defendants post-Brexit
  2. 2 Whether a stay should be granted on forum non conveniens grounds

Ratio Decidendi

The Defendants failed to demonstrate that France is clearly or distinctly more appropriate than England & Wales for the quantification of damages. Although the accident and applicable law are French, the Defendants are domiciled in England, liability is admitted, and the quantum-only dispute can be fairly and efficiently resolved in England using English procedural rules and French substantive law. The balance of convenience, procedural fairness, and the interests of justice do not justify a stay. The application is refused.

Court Disposition

Application for stay refused; proceedings to continue in England & Wales.

Orders

  • Defendants' application for a stay on forum non conveniens grounds is dismissed.
  • Proceedings to continue in the High Court of England & Wales.